Leslie Berliant's Climate Chronicles

In an automotive sector strained by recession, lay-offs, bankruptcies, the credit crunch and recalls, one bright spot over the last year has been the move among corporations to more fuel efficient fleets.

Poland Springs Water, a brand of Nestle Waters, has been greening its fleet since 2007, and seeing big savings as a result. It all started when Chris McKenna moved from warehouse manager to fleet manager at Poland Springs. He had been using biodiesel in the warehouse yard trucks and thought it might be worth testing for the fleet.

In addition to contributing to major health problems, failing to meet federal clean air standards is expensive, a new study shows.

From 2005 to 2007, California hospitals were paid $193 million for nearly 30,000 admissions and emergency room visits due to illnesses caused by exposure to excessive levels of ozone and particulate pollution in areas for the state that were out of compliance with federal clean air standards, according to a new RAND Research study, paid for by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Kresge Foundation. And those numbers don't include other medical costs, such as doctors’ visits for chronic problems such as asthma and lung disease caused by dirty air.

Perceptions of whether California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, is going to save or destroy the California economy depends on who’s doing the talking.

Opponents, like Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, say the measure is too expensive and will destroy jobs in California. In fact, she has made suspending the greenhouse gas reduction law a cornerstone of her campaign. She also suggests that California’s Environmental Quality Act, a model for environmental protection laws in other states, needs drastic reform.

Whitman and other opponents of AB 32, including those trying to get an initiative on the November ballot to suspend the law, argue that if the regulations are implemented, more than a million jobs in California may be lost.

Supporters of AB 32 say Whitman has it backwards: Implementing AB 32 will create jobs and without it, the California economy cannot recover from its current 12.4% unemployment level.

In 2006, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 32, the first state global warming legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy. The law calls for capping greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 and reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Supporters say AB 32 will help slow climate change while creating jobs, improving the health of California residents and creating local energy sources that keep energy money from leaving the state. A recent Union of Concerned Scientists study showed that the cost for small businesses of AB 32, which has not yet been implemented, would be negligible.

Tom Bowman, president of Bowman design group, also wanted to find out about the costs of AB 32, so he set out for his company to meet or exceed the law’s emissions reductions goals. As a result, the group cut its emissions by 65% and saved close to $9,000 a year in costs, with all capital investments in efficiency and technology being re-paid within 15 months.

“We proved the business case for a small business,” says Bowman. “It’s easy to beat those standards and save money at the same time, which is not the message you’re hearing in the political rhetoric.”

In fact, that rhetoric is making quite contrary claims.

Businesses looking for ways cut costs have been scrutinizing their packaging in recent years, reducing their paper and plastic and lightening up the load for shipping.

Both paper and plastic use were down from 2007 to 2008, while aluminum use remained steady, despite a slight improvement in the economy, according to the 2010 State of Green Business Report from GreenBiz.com.

The voluntary emissions reduction market is still the "Wild West" of corporate greenhouse gas target-setting, in software maker Autodesk's view. Companies are not held accountable for verifying or explaining the emissions they report, nor is there any central body monitoring whether they meet the emissions reduction promises that they make to their customers and their stock holders.

Walking the halls of the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, it wasn't difficult to find companies making green claims. Along with 3D televisions, 3D cameras and 3D content, words like "sustainable", "efficient" and "green" were everywhere.

From energy efficiency to waste reduction to alternative energy, it’s clear that consumer electronics manufacturers want buyers and consumers to know that sustainability is an important part of their DNA. In fact, the Consumer Electronics Association worked with Nextera Energy to buy renewable energy credits to offset the conference with its 120,000 plus attendees. They also put together panels a track on technology and the environment with topics like e-waste recycling.

I must start out with a disclaimer. I am biased on this topic. I desperately want the answer to be yes, cooking can save the planet.

That’s because in August, I committed to 365 days of scratch cooking after being inspired by a Michael Pollan article on the decline of cooking and the subsequent rise in the packaged food industry.

Grassroots — adjective of, pertaining to, or involving the common people, esp. as contrasted with or separable from an elite.

Astroturf — trademark used for an artificial grass-like ground covering.

In the lead up to next month's climate negotiations in Copenhagen and the possibility of the U.S. Congress voting a climate bill, many groups are claiming to “represent Americans” and their views on energy and climate legislation.

Today, Greenpeace released a new report, Carbon Scam, on the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project (NKCAP) in the forests of Bolivia.

NKCAP — funded by American Electric Power, BP-Amoco and Pacificorp, and supported by The Nature Conservancy — is often held up as a success story, but that's not what Greenpeace sees.

The report uses the project to instead illustrate the failures of a carbon offset system, particularly one that relies on sub-national offsets to avoid deforestation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.